Realist v. Neo-Conservatism

I don’t know why I didn’t figure this out before, but now I’ve spotted how ludicrous it is for American writers to be celebrating the concept of realism of foreign policy analysts and specialists. This realism is really delusional in its belief that you can spread democracy in the world by force.
Then I saw it: the article by Thomas Parker in the same magazine The American Interest, where I saw the original article that proponded realism against neo-conservatism, "George Washington, Reluctant Realist". Well, I haven’t read the articled yet, but I am sure it will try to say that Washington was in fact a realist who did not in fact believe you should spread democracy by force. It also is silly to identify oil in the Middle East as the reason for the Iraq War as a neo-conservative idea. The realists are the ones who are supposed to be keeping their eyes on the national interests at all times.
I know why this is all ludicrous. American was born by the use of force. There are aspect of this realism, such as getting France to join Alliance, but there is no doubt that in using force to achieve independence and in consolidating the US’s nationhood during its war for independence, that the founding fathers were showing great signs of being neo-conservative. I do reject the idea that simply believing that the US should act as an avatar of democracy around the world, sometimes spreading it by economics and sometimes by diplomacy or trade, and occasionally by force, makes you a neo-conservative.
Does anyone think that Japan or Germany would have accepted democracy if McArthur and the allied commissioners in the West in Germany did not have 500,000 armed men there to support them in enforcing democracy? Does anyone think the Cold War would have come to an end if the US had not at least shown the threat of force? To me, the use of force is not only putting it into the theatre and using troops shooting guns (or the use of proxies), but it is also the threat of force.
Countless democracies that arose in the 1980’s and 90’s would never have arisen if the US had not had an ongoing commitment to the use of force, and one some occasions, used it.
Look at Panama. I know it’s a small country, but there is no way there would be democracy in Panama if the US had not been willing to use force to take out he dictator.
It is delusional to think that force can always bring about democracy in a country. It is equally delusional to believe that democracy can be achieved at all times without it.
I am also realizing that the idea that somehow neo-conservatives are inconsistent because they don’t want intervention at home but only abroad is ludicrous. Certainly the best example this is the Carter presidency, which was very interventionist domestically but did very little abroad because it seemed to think it was a bad idea to intervene abroad. Mr. Eisenhower intervened abroad all the time in the 1950’s, but was not a very active person in social affairs domestically, except for the inter-state highway. William Jennings Bryan, one of the biggest social reformers of his day, hated the idea of foreign intervention and left the Cabinet with Wilson wanted to get into WWI. There are other examples. The point is it absolutist, extremist and delusional to say that one should always only be interventionist at home and never abroad, or vice versa. In other words, the choice should be made according to what makes the most sense in the context of the situation. It’s rather like jurisprudence. Cases should be decided on a case by case basis according to the circumstances and facts that obtain.
These realists don’t want to confront, from a historical perspective, how they would have approached the 1930’s in terms of diplomacy.
Realists always say we have to be balanced and objective in our defence of Israel. It is the only democracy in the Middle East. Is there another region in the world where democracy is not fully backed up by the US when it is surrounded by dictatorships? Does anyone know any realist who says that the US should pick and choose between democracy and dictatorship in any area? What about North Korea v. South Korea? Does any realist seriously say that those two countries should be objectively treated the same way? Of course not. I fear that there tends to be somewhat anti-Semitic in saying that somehow the US is not balanced or objective in its treatment of the Middle East because it support Israel. This has to be said since a recent book, apparently written by a Jew, suggested that neo-conservative is a Jewish phenomenon, albeit admitting that some non-Jews like Jean Kirkpatrick and Daniel Patrick Moynihan were in favour of neo-conservatism.
We don’t see this happening on any other continent. If there is a democracy and it is surrounded by dictatorships, even the realists know that there is no way that the US is going to objectively treat that country the same way that it treats the other countries in the area. One has to say that at the very it betrays the fact that those other areas aren’t chock full of oil.
I thought the secret reason for invading Iraq was to actually bring freedom and democracy to that country. Apparently it was all about oil. Sounds more like Kissinger than Wilson to me.